Passim

Mandamus decisions / Northern District of California

Suraj v. Edlow

Northern District of CaliforniaBeth Labson FreemanDecided July 29, 2026No. 5:26-cv-02269

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency USCIS Read by a model
However, even if an applicant files both forms concurrently, USCIS still adjudicates them sequentially.
Form or filing I-485 (adjustment of status); I-526E (investor petition) Read by a model
Mr. Suraj’s I-526E Immigrant Petition by Regional Center Investor (“I-526E Petition”) and both Plaintiffs’ I-485 Applications to Register Permanent Residency (“I-485 Applications”)
What the suit asked for Decide the application Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of a court order mandating the adjudication of Plaintiffs’ Applications within 60 days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
the motion to dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
On May 29, 2026, Defendants moved to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
Disposition Dismissed in part; some claims go on The government's motion to dismiss was granted in part: some claims were dismissed and others go on. Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ claims regarding their I-526E Petition under the APA, Mandamus Act, and Equal Access to Justice Act.
Prevailing party Each side in part Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ claims regarding their I-526E Petition under the APA, Mandamus Act, and Equal Access to Justice Act.
The delay claim The delay claim goes on Read by a model
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ claims regarding their I-526E Petition under the APA, Mandamus Act, and Equal Access to Justice Act.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
Plaintiffs’ due process claim is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Months pending 5 months from the application to the suit; 9.4 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
On October 15, 2025, Plaintiffs concurrently filed Mr. Suraj’s I-526E Immigrant Petition
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Section 1252(a)(2)(B) bar rejected Read by a model
As articulated above, because section 1252 of the INA only precludes judicial review of discretionary actions, and Defendants’ duty to adjudicate is non-discretionary, the Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction over pace-of-adjudication claims such as this one.
Nationality India Read by a model
Plaintiffs are Indian nationals

How the case ended

Docket
No. 5:26-cv-02269
Filed
March 16, 2026
Ended
August 14, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
151 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
voluntary dismissal 2026-08-14

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.